Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-12 Thread Roshani Nagmote
Thanks everyone for testing and voting for the release. I am working with Sheng to finalize and post the release. Announcement will follow soon. Regards, Roshani On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 7:03 AM kellen sunderland < kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > Tracked down the issue referred to above

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-10 Thread kellen sunderland
Tracked down the issue referred to above and it's not a bug. I'll update the ticket. Changing to +1. On Mon, Sep 10, 2018 at 3:00 PM kellen sunderland < kellen.sunderl...@gmail.com> wrote: > -0.1 > > There's one test failure I've run into (details below). Following Indhu's > logic I don't

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-10 Thread kellen sunderland
-0.1 There's one test failure I've run into (details below). Following Indhu's logic I don't think this should block the release as it's not relating to a release feature introduced in this version. I'm trying to use the cpp-package examples as reference code for how to run MXNet models from a

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-06 Thread Anirudh
-1 Considering that using fp16 with gluon is much easier than the alternative where you need access to the model code, this fix is really useful. I understand the pain of doing mxnet release and appreciate Roshani and Shengs efforts, but this seems like something we should fix. On Thu, Sep 6,

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-06 Thread Haibin Lin
+1 built from source and passes dist_sync_kvstore test on Ubuntu. Best, Haibin On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 1:32 PM Indhu wrote: > +1 > > The release candidate looks good. I'm able to build and run basic models. > > One the FP16 issue: > > Like others have pointed out, releases on expensive in terms

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-06 Thread Indhu
+1 The release candidate looks good. I'm able to build and run basic models. One the FP16 issue: Like others have pointed out, releases on expensive in terms of time and effort. There needs to be a high and more objective bar on what qualifies as a release blocker to make sure we are not

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-06 Thread Roshani Nagmote
Thanks Kellen and Naveen for pointing it out. Now we have 3 committers +1 votes to move forward with the release. But it will be great if more people can test the release. I am extending the timeline for voting till 7 pm today. Please test and vote. Thanks, Roshani On Thu, Sep 6, 2018 at 5:46

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-06 Thread Naveen Swamy
+1 Roshani/Sheng, Thanks for putting this release together, I was able to test the release only now. As Kellen indicated this release does not have enough committer votes, I suggest you extend the timeline. I downloaded the source code from

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-05 Thread Aaron Markham
0 (non-binding) If we have a problem that blocks users, and a solution in hand... then we should fix it, but not at the expense of starting the release cycle again just for one fix. Users can cherry pick or build from master if they want the fix right away, right? I'd change my mind to -1 if this

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-05 Thread Roshani Nagmote
I believe everyone here is working hard to make MXNet a better framework for users. It's completely okay to have different opinions, we can decide together if this issue is a blocker or not after voting time is over. As I mentioned before, voting will end at 7 pm today. So there is still time to

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-04 Thread sandeep krishnamurthy
1. As a Apache MXNet community member, I raised the concern of broken functionality for the user. I explained and provided the data points on the issue, workaround and why I think it is important. If after all this, you think my vote is biased on my employer just because a user I

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-04 Thread Chris Olivier
btw, there are no vetoes on package releases: VOTES ON PACKAGE RELEASES Votes on whether a package is ready to be released use majority approval -- i.e. at least three

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-04 Thread Naveen Swamy
"Releases may not be vetoed" http://www.apache.org/legal/release-policy.html#release-approval I haven't tested the release yet, I'll do so tomorrow. > On Sep 4, 2018, at 7:13 PM, Sheng Zha wrote: > > Thanks for sharing your opinions, Thomas. Your recognition and respect of > people's efforts

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-04 Thread Sheng Zha
Thanks for sharing your opinions, Thomas. Your recognition and respect of people's efforts on preparing the release candidate are certainly appreciated. Now that the vote is set to fail thanks to the veto, there will be plenty of opportunities to include those bug fixes, including the one Zhi

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-04 Thread Thomas DELTEIL
-0 (non-binding) If I may add some nuancing plus a personal data point as one of the users commenting in the bug report in question: - Performance vs. Basic functionality => I don't think high performance use-cases and basic functionality are two obviously opposed concepts and see no

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-04 Thread Sheng Zha
Sandeep, Thanks for explaining your veto. We have open bugs that impacted a lot more than just 3 customers, just by referring to the number of commenters on the issue [1]. You said that this is for "high performance use cases", which contradicts with Hagay's assement that this is "basic

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-04 Thread Sheng Zha
Hi Hagay, You asked, "It can be fixed and included in the release alongside the rest of the release content, right?" Yes, it can, after it has appropriate approval and merged to master, and at the cost of restarting the vote. However, personally, I do not think there's enough justification for

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-04 Thread sandeep krishnamurthy
My initial vote of “-0” was due to lack of info from a user who had said, he overcame this issue for FP16 model. However, suggested workaround [1] for the issue is not straight forward and generally usable for all users. Also, issue is not simple and isolated to be listed in the Release Notes as

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-04 Thread Hagay Lupesko
Hi Sheng, Addressing your questions: - "why this specific bug is more important than all the other known bugs, that this becomes a release blocker" I do not consider it to be more or less important than other fixes. It can be fixed and included in the release alongside the rest of the release

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-04 Thread Sheng Zha
Hi Hagay and Sandeep, Could you help us understand why this specific bug is more important than all the other known bugs, that this becomes a release blocker? Some facts to consider: - The bug exists since SymbolBlock was introduced a year ago and has survived at least three releases, so this is

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-04 Thread Hagay Lupesko
Sandeep mentions the issue of an error when user tries to load model params trained/saved as FP16. https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/issues/11849 The fix was done by Sandeep: https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12412 and is ready to be cherry picked into the release branch.

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-04 Thread sandeep krishnamurthy
"- 0" I believe the bug #11849 , unable to import non-fp32 models into Gluon, fixed in this PR #12412 is important for the users. I would rather pick this fix in this release than plan a

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-03 Thread Philip Cho
Actually, the command "git clone --recursive https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet -b 1.3.0.rc0" works fine now, never mind. On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 1:45 PM Philip Cho wrote: > Unfortunately, MXNet was depending on a branch of TVM that is now deleted. > We will have to merge #12448 >

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-03 Thread Philip Cho
Unfortunately, MXNet was depending on a branch of TVM that is now deleted. We will have to merge #12448 before the release. Background: See dmlc/tvm#1394 . Philip. On Mon, Sep 3, 2018 at 7:26 AM

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-03 Thread Carin Meier
Checked out the tag, built and tested the Clojure package. +1 On Fri, Aug 31, 2018 at 10:59 PM Roshani Nagmote wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to propose a vote to release Apache MXNet (incubating) version > 1.3.0.RC0. Voting will start now (Friday, Aug 31st) and end at 7:00 PM > PDT,

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-02 Thread Steffen Rochel
Thanks Sheng. With [1] I was able to build and test 1.3.0.rc0. Explanation of version makes sense. Changing my vote to +1. Roshani - please note, master still has version 1.3.0. This makes it difficult to differentiate to rc0. Hope master version will be updated soon as part of release process.

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-02 Thread Joshua Z. Zhang
Sheng, thanks for clarification. That make sense to me. I will change the vote to +1 > > On Sep 2, 2018 at 9:43 AM, mailto:zhash...@apache.org)> wrote: > > > > Hi Steffen and Zhi, > > That's because those are not the artifacts being voted on. I just

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-02 Thread Sheng Zha
Hi Steffen and Zhi, That's because those are not the artifacts being voted on. I just uploaded the actual release artifact to [1]. Unfortunately, even the lengthy release process doc [2] didn't capture this step... Steffen, In case you don't already know, regarding the version string, since

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-01 Thread Joshua Z. Zhang
-1. Please include all 3rd party dependencies, GitHub won’t automatically do that. BTW, Per user request in forum, I found this PR(https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/pull/12118 ) is not included in 1.3 rc0, I recommend to

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-01 Thread Steffen Rochel
-1 https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/archive/1.3.0.rc0.zip and https://github.com/apache/incubator-mxnet/archive/1.3.0.rc0.tar.gz do not contain 3rdparty packages, resulting in make failure: tar zxf incubator-mxnet-1.3.0.rc0.tar.gz cd incubator-mxnet-1.3.0.rc0/ make USE_OPENCV=1

Re: [VOTE] Release MXNet version 1.3.0.RC0

2018-09-01 Thread Pigeon Lucky
+1 On Sat, 1 Sep 2018, 10:59 Roshani Nagmote, wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to propose a vote to release Apache MXNet (incubating) version > 1.3.0.RC0. Voting will start now (Friday, Aug 31st) and end at 7:00 PM > PDT, Wednesday, Sept 5th. > > Link to release notes: >